Darwinists’ Claims That Darwinism’s Saying “We Come From Apes” is An Oversimplification

Darwinists maintain that the people around them are simplifying Darwinism and Darwin, by provocatively saying, “A fool called Darwin” or “Look, we resemble monkeys, so we must be descended from them.”

But this is a deception. There is no provocation going on. People have merely been told about the information of which they are unaware in recent years. It has been proved that they were misled and deceived for years. They have been told how Darwinism is a lie, that it is only kept alive by propaganda, that Darwinists have produced false evidence to rescue their position, and that they try to mislead people with the lies that “we have found a transitional fossil” or “this is the missing link,” even though not a single transitional form fossil exists. People have seen the 100 million fossils that were concealed from them for years. They have touched these fossils with their own hands at exhibitions and have seen that living things HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED for millions of years. There is no longer any chance of deceiving them.

What Darwinists are in fact complaining about is this: Darwinists have seen that people’s awareness has risen. They realize that people have discovered that Darwinism is nonsense. In complaining about the over-simplification of Darwinism they are actTually expressing their unhappiness with this state of affairs. The fact is that Darwinism has not been oversimplified at all, though its facile and false face has finally been exposed.

Darwinism is a theory that claims that “the first cell formed by chance in muddy water.” It maintains that the whole variety of life came into being through chance, unconscious and random events. It ascribes the existence of such extraordinary structures as wings, fins, feathers and tails to blind coincidence alone. And no matter how much Darwinists may deny it, Darwinism claims that “humans are descended from monkeys because they resemble monkeys.” Darwinism is no more complex than that.

Darwinists are shocked and alarmed by the exposure of this facile logic and have therefore recently been sheltering behind the claim that “monkeys are not really our ancestors, but our cousins.” But this is part of the same deception. When Darwinism asserts, “Man comes from a primate”, does this incur a different meaning? A monkey or a primate, what difference does it make? Is it not the same old outdated lie and perverted claim? Does this false theory suddenly become scientific if one says “man’s ancestor is a primate” or “humans and primates have the same ancestor”? Of course, not. This is nothing else than maintaining the deception by way of sophistry. It merely treats people with contempt.

Darwinists’ worries very probably stem from Darwinism’s sudden and recent collapse. Their attempts to portray Darwinism as a scientific theory, to claim that it has been proved “apart from a few minor points” and the way they complain about people ridiculing this outdated theory are all indications of this. Because Darwinists are facing a situation they never expected. Paleontology, the only science that might have produced any evidence for Darwinism, HAS PRODUCED NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL. 100 million fossils have been unearthed, BUT THESE ALL PROVE CREATION. All fossils belong to perfect life forms. Nothing is deficient, missing, semi-developed or peculiar in them. Moreover, a significant part of these fossils are identical to life forms around today. LIVING THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS. In other words, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION.

Darwinists sought the answer to all this powerful evidence by HIDING fossils away. (Darwinists have done this before. They kept Cambrian Period fossils dating back 540 million years that dealt a serious blow to Darwinism HIDDEN AWAY FOR 70 YEARS.) But the unearthing of these fossils from where they had been concealed has come as a huge shock. A great awakening against the Darwinist deception has begun in all countries of the world. Instead of believing in Darwinism, people now laugh at it as a false and outdated theory. That is why Darwinists complain about university instructors, teachers and even their own families laughing at Darwinism. Darwinists are no longer able to prevent people coming to full awareness in the face of the true scientific facts.

Claiming that the universe and everything in it have been formed by coincidences is the most irrational explanation… https://t.co/n62iJiVOKI2018/02/20

It is scientifically impossible for a single protein to come into existence through coincidences. Evolution theory… https://t.co/m8u897zJsj2018/02/19

Using the theory of evolution"s "coincidence claim" to explain the emergence of life is the most irrational method. https://t.co/w6OeU2uoh32018/02/18

Charles Darwin accepted perfection in animals when he said: "(The) Sight of a feather in a peacock"s tail, whenever… https://t.co/dXw8LjTdrt2018/02/18

The logic that nothing, but chance, is scientific is a flawed one. It is a logical dead-end. If brand-new civilizations were discovered in outer space, would the logic of Darwinism and chance be employed in all of them? Would it be claimed that chance established civilizations everywhere? The portrayal of this miserable logic as scientific is the shame and disgrace of the current century.

In order to create, God has no need to design

It's important that the word "design" be properly understood. That God has created a flawless design does not mean that He first made a plan and then followed it. God, the Lord of the Earth and the heavens, needs no "designs" in order to create. God is exalted above all such deficiencies. His planning and creation take place at the same instant.

Whenever God wills a thing to come about, it is enough for Him just to say, "Be!"

As verses of the Qur'an tell us:

His command when He desires a thing is just to say to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 36: 82)

[God is] the Originator of the heavens and Earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, "Be!" and it is. (Qur'an, 2: 117)